MovieChat Forums > Land of the Dead (2005) Discussion > This movie is underrated!

This movie is underrated!

posted 8 years ago by jorgito2001
8 replies | jump to latest

Just because its the 4th in the "Dead" series done SO many years after the original trilogy (think Crystal Skull)...just rewatched it and it was an entertaining zombie movie, no CLASSIC, but action packed, plenty of gore (especially in the Unrated cut) and a decent storyline. Doesn't deserve the hate it gets!

----
Im gonna punch you in the cooter, I swear to God!

[–] Minus_The_Beer 8 years ago

Agreed. It's important to remember that Day of the Dead was also rejected upon its original release but now it's rightfully celebrated alongside Night and Dawn. Hopefully in time people will look back on this one and see its merits. It really stands out from the crowd of zombie stuff that's over-saturated pop culture in the last decade. Better than World War Zzzzz. Better than The Walking Bland. And much, much better than Zack Snyder's Dawn remake.

Anyone here mentions Hotel California dies before the first line clears his lips.

[–] movie_nazi 7 years ago

And much, much better than Zack Snyder's Dawn remake.

I honestly do not get the hate that movie gets. I had been watching zombie movies for a while and Snyder's Dawn was the first zombie movie to make me tense in a long time.

My Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings

[–] Minus_The_Beer 7 years ago

I honestly do not get the hate that movie gets. I had been watching zombie movies for a while and Snyder's Dawn was the first zombie movie to make me tense in a long time.

It's got a strong start, but quickly fizzles out with gimmick after gimmick (zombie baby) and stupid, under-developed characters. I didn't feel much of a sense of dread with the remake, it just felt like a typically over-polished Hollywood studio film, right down to its dopey use of Disturbed's Down with the Sickness over the credits.

I don't know, as a die-hard fan of Romero's original, I don't think the movie was really made for people like me, but even on its own merits, I don't think it's a very strong film from a narrative perspective. The stakes just felt non-existent. I really didn't care about any of the characters (save for the dog) and so when the carnage kicked in, it just left me feeling numb.

Anyone here mentions Hotel California dies before the first line clears his lips.

[–] movie_nazi 7 years ago

I don't know, as a die-hard fan of Romero's original, I don't think the movie was really made for people like me, but even on its own merits, I don't think it's a very strong film from a narrative perspective. The stakes just felt non-existent. I really didn't care about any of the characters (save for the dog) and so when the carnage kicked in, it just left me feeling numb.

I see you made the specification "Romero's original" because let's be honest, excluding Land of the Dead they have been absolutely terrible. Talk about gimmick, he even jumped on board with the video camera craze with Diary of the Dead of which I might add pretty much all of those video camera movies suck as they all eventually get to a point where you are asking, "WHY THE FK ARE YOU STILL FILMING?!" .

Anyways, much respect to Romero for inventing the genre and creating a truly terrifying situation and although I had nothing but love for Night and Dawn I was always a bit turned off by Day and the main reason was Bub. It just bugged me to think that the zombies could be our friends.However, it did serve as a good set up to Land to show us that they could learn and that made them even more scary.

But back to the Dawn remake, I thought making the zombies runners really upped the ante and increased the tension. The baby may have been gimmicky but let's be honest, that is pretty hard core. Having to put a bullet in a baby, zombie or not, is fkn nuts. The next level is to show a zombie eat a human baby as an hors d'oeuvre.  The story may have been a bit rushed and may have brought in too many characters but I thought it was fun regardless. I also love the ambiguous ending. It is usually a love or hate crowd with this film and most of the hate camp are hard core Romero fans. I may be one of the few Romero fans that actually appreciate the Dawn remake.

My Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings

[–] Minus_The_Beer 7 years ago

I see you made the specification "Romero's original" because let's be honest, excluding Land of the Dead they have been absolutely terrible.

Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying that Night, Dawn and Day have all been terrible? Because I just can't get behind that at all. From my POV, the original three films are all classics, with Land being a nice little addendum. Diary and Survival weren't so great, that much we can agree on.

But back to the Dawn remake, I thought making the zombies runners really upped the ante and increased the tension. The baby may have been gimmicky but let's be honest, that is pretty hard core. Having to put a bullet in a baby, zombie or not, is fkn nuts. The next level is to show a zombie eat a human baby as an hors d'oeuvre. The story may have been a bit rushed and may have brought in too many characters but I thought it was fun regardless. I also love the ambiguous ending. It is usually a love or hate crowd with this film and most of the hate camp are hard core Romero fans. I may be one of the few Romero fans that actually appreciate the Dawn remake.

I can hear what you're saying and I certainly understand. The Dawn remake was an entertaining movie, no doubt. It's just that it left very little of a lasting impression with me. It was like drinking soda pop. When I first saw Romero's original, it crept under my skin and stayed there for days. Even when I watch it now, I get a chilling sense of isolation and fear for the future of mankind. Almost forty years after its release! To each his own, but the remake just didn't get me anywhere near that.

Anyone here mentions Hotel California dies before the first line clears his lips.

[–] movie_nazi 7 years ago

I'm sorry, I did write that a bit unclear. I meant the original trilogy was good and the new ones suck. Well, I thought Land was OK but the other new ones are absolutely terrible. Embarrassing really, to a Romero fan.

You are right man, Dawn to me was so creepy. That movie emotionally scarred me as a child. Here is how I ranked the Romero films:

Dawn
Day
Night
Land
Diary
Survival

[–] corgi37 7 years ago

I really loved this when it came out, and even more with the uncut dvd. But I am not such a huge fan now. There is just so much that I feel is wrong with the film and the plot.

Simon Baker doesn't seem to be portraying a jaded, faded character. He just looks bored.
Money being important was ridiculous.
Got no problem with a "smart" zombie. Bub was awesome, but Big Daddy sucked big time. And the way he walked just bugged me so much. Like he had soiled himself.
Asia Argento was wasted & her character a humiliation for Romero.

Easy improvements for would have been:
A Kaufman back story: Who/what was he before it all came down? Business man or politician is my guess. Luckily, I thought Hopper nailed the character, whom he based on Donald Rumsfeld.
Continuity: I expected this would be set after Day, but its actually, in my opinion, set in a Z.A. before the desperation of Day. Which is ironic, considering Romero actually cannibalised the original DAY script for this! And "Slack" tells Denbo she has never known a life other than in a Z.A. She infers its 20 years. Which kinda makes you wonder why softball was still being played and how a rather fresh "Number 9" came into being???
The Irish insurrection. What is it about the Irish with Romero??? lol - Utterly pathetic stereotyping & totally under used part of the film. The original script had a bit more about it. I guess it was just forgotten about.

[–] sillyspaghetti 7 years ago

I agree with the OP. This is pretty cool. I like Night best, then this, and then the other entries about the same. My other half loves night, likes Dawn, Day & Land, hates Diary and hasn't even watched Survival.